2019
DOI: 10.1177/0962280219862586
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Survival forests under test: Impact of the proportional hazards assumption on prognostic and predictive forests for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis survival

Abstract: We investigate the effect of the proportional hazards assumption on prognostic and predictive models of the survival time of patients suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). We theoretically compare the underlying model formulations of several variants of survival forests and implementations thereof, including random forests for survival, conditional inference forests, Ranger, and survival forests with L 1 splitting, with two novel variants, namely distributional and transformation survival forests… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
33
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
1
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This yields not only a conditional parameter function for the transformation parameters ϑ(x) but additionally a personalized treatment effect β(x). Recently, there has been increasing interest in using random forest algorithms for estimating such personalized treatment effects (Foster, Taylor, and Ruberg 2011; Seibold, Zeileis, andHothorn 2016, 2018;Wager and Athey 2018) and transformation trees and forests can readily couple this with the flexibility of transformation models: Korepanova et al (2020) provide empirical results in the context of transformation survival forests.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This yields not only a conditional parameter function for the transformation parameters ϑ(x) but additionally a personalized treatment effect β(x). Recently, there has been increasing interest in using random forest algorithms for estimating such personalized treatment effects (Foster, Taylor, and Ruberg 2011; Seibold, Zeileis, andHothorn 2016, 2018;Wager and Athey 2018) and transformation trees and forests can readily couple this with the flexibility of transformation models: Korepanova et al (2020) provide empirical results in the context of transformation survival forests.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The core functionality provided by mlt was instrumental in developing statistical learning procedures based on transformation models. Transformation trees and corresponding transformation forests were introduced by Hothorn and Zeileis (2017) and implemented in package trtf; an application to conditional distributions for body mass indices was described by Hothorn (2018) and novel survival forests have been evaluated by Korepanova, Seibold, Steffen, and Hothorn (2019). Two different gradient boosting schemes allowing complex models to be built in the transformation modelling framework were proposed by Hothorn (2020d) and are implemented in package tbm.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although this work is restricted to normally distributed endpoints and linear models, the original MOB and hence the predMOB as well are applicable to any kind of data that can be analyzed using a fully parameterized model, for example, binary endpoints. Even the application to time‐to‐event endpoints is feasible using parametric failure time models such as the Weibull model or a more flexible alternative using Bernstein polynomials as originally proposed by Hothorn et al…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%